Advertisement

Retrospective Review of a Mobile Mammography Screening Program in an Underserved Population within a Large Metropolitan Area

Published:August 04, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2020.07.012

      Rationale and Objectives

      Mobile mammography units provide preventive health care to patients facing barriers to annual screening. This study reviews the outcomes of a mobile mammography service during a recent 5-year period.

      Materials and Methods

      This retrospective study analyzed the examinations by mobile mammography during a 5-year period (9327 examinations). The patients recalled, biopsies performed, and cancers detected were tallied. The race, age, breast cancer size, lymph node involvement, and metastases were recorded. The positive predictive value (PPV) and cancer detection rate metrics were calculated as outlined by the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System Atlas.

      Results

      The program identified cancer in 14 cases (cancer detection rate = 1.5 per 1000 examinations [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9–2.5]) with 11 being invasive. The majority of these cancers were small and of low stage. Lymph node status was determined in 11 of the 14 cases (1 as N1mi, 5 as N0, 4 as N1,1 as N2a). Abnormalities led to 1686 examinations recalled (Recall Rate = 17.8%; PPV 1 = 0.8% [95% CI, 0.5%–1.4%]). One hundred and one were recommended for biopsy (PPV 2 = 13.9% [95% CI, 8.4%–21.9%]), and 98 pursued biopsy (PPV 3 = 14.3% [95% CI, 8.7%–22.6%]). Patient age ranged from 41 to 67 years with an average of 50.6 years.

      Conclusion

      The program detected many cancers in an asymptomatic population facing barriers to breast cancer screening. These findings are underscored by the cancers detected at an early stage with a favorable prognosis and support the need for the development of similar programs.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ferlay J
        • Soerjomataram I
        • Dikshit R
        • et al.
        Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012.
        Int J Cancer. 2015; 136: E359-E386
        • DeSantis CE
        • Fedewa SA
        • Goding Sauer A
        • et al.
        Breast cancer statistics, 2015: convergence of incidence rates between black and white women.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2016; 66: 31-42
        • Tabar L
        • Yen M-F
        • Vitak B
        • et al.
        Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening.
        Lancet. 2003; 361: 1405-1410
        • Tabar L
        • Vitak B
        • Chen TH
        • et al.
        Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades.
        Radiology. 2011; 260: 658-663
        • Hendrick RE
        • Helvie MA
        Mammography screening: a new estimate of number needed to screen to prevent one breast cancer death.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 198: 723-728
        • Berry DA
        • Cronin KA
        • Plevritis SK
        • et al.
        Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 1784-1792
        • Jensen LF
        • Pedersen AF
        • Andersen B
        • et al.
        Identifying specific non-attending groups in breast cancer screening–population-based registry study of participation and socio-demography.
        BMC Cancer. 2012; 12: 518
        • White A
        • Thompson TD
        • White MC
        • et al.
        Cancer screening test use–United States, 2015.
        Morbid Mortal Weekly Rep. 2017; 66: 201
        • DeSantis C
        • Jemal A
        • Ward E
        Disparities in breast cancer prognostic factors by race, insurance status, and education.
        Cancer Causes Control. 2010; 21: 1445-1450
        • Vieira RA
        • Lourenco TS
        • Mauad EC
        • et al.
        Barriers related to non-adherence in a mammography breast-screening program during the implementation period in the interior of Sao Paulo State, Brazil.
        J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2015; 5: 211-219
        • Maheswaran R
        • Pearson T
        • Jordan H
        • et al.
        Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK.
        J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2006; 60: 208-212
        • Schwartz KL
        • Crossley-May H
        • Vigneau FD
        • et al.
        Race, socioeconomic status and stage at diagnosis for five common malignancies.
        Cancer Causes Control. 2003; 14: 761-766
        • Reuben DB
        • Bassett LW
        • Hirsch SH
        • et al.
        A randomized clinical trial to assess the benefit of offering on-site mobile mammography in addition to health education for older women.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002; 179: 1509-1514
        • Mizuguchi S
        • Barkley L
        • Rai S
        • et al.
        Mobile mammography, race, and insurance: use trends over a decade at a comprehensive urban cancer center.
        J Oncol Pract. 2015; 11: e75-e80
        • Massin-Short SB
        • Grullon MA
        • Judge CM
        • et al.
        A mobile mammography pilot project to increase screening among Latina women of low socioeconomic status.
        Public Health Rep. 2010; 125: 765-771
        • McCoy CB
        • Khoury EL
        • Hermanns LS
        • et al.
        Mobile mammography: a model program for medically underserved women.
        Women's Health Issues. 1992; 2: 196-203
        • Guillaume E
        • Launay L
        • Dejardin O
        • et al.
        Could mobile mammography reduce social and geographic inequalities in breast cancer screening participation.
        Prev Med. 2017; 100: 84-88
        • Carkaci S
        • Geiser WR
        • Adrada BE
        • et al.
        How to establish a cost-effective mobile mammography program.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 201: W691-W697
        • Abdel-Aleem H
        • El-Gibaly OM
        • El-Gazzar AF
        • et al.
        Mobile clinics for women's and children's health.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; (Issue 8:CD009677)
        • Sickles EA
        • D'Orsi CJ
        ACR BI-RADS follow-up and outcome monitoring.
        ACR BI-RADS Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2013
        • Voduc KD
        • Cheang MC
        • Tyldesley S
        • et al.
        Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of local and regional relapse.
        J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 1684-1691
        • Arleo EK
        • Dashevsky BZ
        • Reichman M
        • et al.
        Screening mammography for women in their 40s: a retrospective study of the potential impact of the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force's 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013; 201: 1401-1406
      1. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program(www.seer.cancer.gov) Research Data (1975-2016), National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, released April 2019, based on the November 2018 submission. Accessed April 23, 2019.

        • Ray KM
        • Price ER
        • Joe BN
        Evidence to support screening women in their 40s.
        Radiol Clin North Am. 2017; 55: 429-439
        • Rim SH
        • Allaire BT
        • Ekwueme DU
        • et al.
        Cost-effectiveness of breast cancer screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.
        Cancer Causes Control. 2019; 30: 819-826
        • Kauhava L
        • Immonen-Raiha P
        • Parvinen I
        • et al.
        Population-based mammography screening results in substantial savings in treatment costs for fatal breast cancer.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2006; 98: 143-150
        • Morton R
        • Sayma M
        • Sura MS
        Economic analysis of the breast cancer screening program used by the UK NHS: Should the program be maintained.
        Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2017; 9: 217-225
        • Lehman CD
        • Arao RF
        • Sprague BL
        • et al.
        National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: update from the breast cancer surveillance consortium.
        Radiology. 2017; 283: 49-58
        • Stanley E
        • Lewis MC
        • Irshad A
        • et al.
        Effectiveness of a mobile mammography program.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 209: 1426-1429
        • Pitman JA
        • McGinty GB
        • Soman RR
        • et al.
        Screening mammography for women in their 40s: the potential impact of the American Cancer Society and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendations.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017; 209: 697-702
        • Roubidoux MA
        • Shih-Pei Wu P
        • Nolte ELR
        • et al.
        Availability of prior mammograms affects incomplete report rates in mobile screening mammography.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 171: 667-673
        • Bahl M
        • Mercaldo S
        • Vijapura CA
        • et al.
        Comparison of performance metrics with digital 2D versus tomosynthesis mammography in the diagnostic setting.
        Eur Radiol. 2019; 29: 477-484
        • Skaane P
        • Sebuodegard S
        • Bandos AI
        • et al.
        Performance of breast cancer screening using digital breast tomosynthesis: results from the prospective population-based Oslo Tomosynthesis Screening Trial.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 169: 489-496